In the early modern period, the insane were more or less regarded as scum. They were locked up in institutions where they spent the rest of their lives in appalling conditions. This is the picture that has been put forward in particular by 20th-century scientists such as Michel Foucault. However, research into the Dolhuis in Amsterdam shows that there was indeed involvement and care from staff and family among the residents.
In 1561 the “Amsterdam Dolhuis” was founded, after a donation of 3000 guilders from Mr Hendrik Pauluszoon Boelens. The story goes that his wife, Christina Boelens, was attacked during her pregnancy by an insane woman who stormed down the stairs and grabbed Christina by the throat. When she had broken free in terror, she and her husband promised that, if the baby was born healthy, they would ask the council of the city of Amsterdam for a place to build a Dolhuis. And so it happened.
A negative image prevailed for a long time about the so-called Dolhuis period, which lasted roughly from the 16th to the 18th century. For example, historian Andrew Scull wrote:“In the 17th and 18th centuries, the insane was treated no better than a beast, for that was just as he was then seen.” This negative picture of early modern psychiatric care is based in part on the writings of the 19th-century. century reformers of insane care, who gave a less than rosy impression of the situation in the preceding period. The work of 'antipsychiatric' scientists such as Michel Foucault has also determined the image. In his book Histoire de la foil (1961) Foucault spoke of a 'great incarceration' of deviant individuals in the 17th century.
But is this negative image correct? In recent years, much research has been done on psychiatric care in the past. The focus is no longer on psychiatric treatment, but on an analysis of the circumstances that led to admission:the interaction between psychiatry, family and municipalities. Historians try to answer the question to what extent psychiatric institutions were indeed shelters for socially undesirable individuals. This article focuses on the recording process in the Dolhuis in Amsterdam in the 17th and 18th centuries. Inventories, documents about recording, regents' books, petitions, a memorandum and the insane books of the Dolhuis from the Amsterdam city archives provide a new and surprising picture of the function of the house and its residents.
Nuisance, danger, concern
Having someone admitted to the Dolhuis, located on the Kloverniersburgwal, was not an easy matter and took place in several steps. First, a petition (a petition with which one can apply to the court or an administrative body to obtain a certain provision) had to be submitted to the Heren Burgemeesters of the city of Amsterdam. The family played an important role in this:more than half of these requests for admission were made by them. After a doctor passed judgment on an insane person, admission was made. An admission was based on at least one of the following reasons:causing a nuisance in society, endangering yourself or others and needing care. The claims show that admission was often only made if aggression was involved. In the case of Hendrikje Camphuyssen it was so bad that her mother wrote in the application that her daughter had already put her life in danger several times. She even had to flee the house where they lived together.
It is striking that when aggression posed no danger to other people, the residents were often left to the care of the family. An example of this is the request for the recording of Gerrit Weggelte. His mother asked for this because he had already tried to commit suicide several times. She had tied him to the bed as a precaution. Doctor Van de Schaaf, however, stated in his report:'being completely at his wits' end, not malicious, complaining that sometimes he is in a certain battle of mind; having advised the mother to look on with her son for some time.'
The first European home for the care of the insane was London's Bedlam, which opened its doors as early as 1247. However, most Dolhuizen in Western Europe, including in the Netherlands, were founded later, in the 15th and 16th centuries. A resident of Den Bosch, called Reinier van Aerkel, determined that after his death his assets should be spent on caring for 'poor sinless people'. Thus, in 1442, the first Dutch institution was created specifically for the mentally ill. The Dolhuizen were not only the result of philanthropy, they were also the result of increasing pressure on cities. During this period they were overrun by vagabonds, adventurers and vagabonds. The Dolhuizen generated income, among other things, from inviting city citizens to come and watch the 'dollen' for a fee, on Sundays and public holidays. Incidentally, not only 'senseless' people were locked up, the social isolation of all kinds of deviants started in the early modern period. Work shy, loose balls, beggars and bums ended up in rasphuizen, better houses or 'prisons asiles'. The French philosopher Michel Foucault spoke in his book Folie et déraison. History of the foil à l'age classique (1961) of a "great incarceration" of irrational and unproductive people. But compared to the developments around 1900, when the insane asylums sprang up en masse, the incarceration of the mentally ill in the early modern period was marginal.
The treatment
There was no question of medical treatment in the modern sense in the Dolhuis. Its main function was to place people in custody and also to take care of them. This is apparent from the contract of the 'indoor father' and 'indoor mother' who supervised the daily affairs of the house, in which they promise to give the insane 'as much security and convenience as is possible with good care. ' Relatively little is known about the daily practice in the madhouses. Research into the Haarlem Dolhuis shows that the caretakers were sometimes very creative in their dealings with the 'rabid' residents. For example, when Isaac Hendricx was admitted here in 1684, he was convinced that God had commanded him not to eat or drink anything for forty days. Since his admission, several attempts had been made to get Isaac to eat, but nothing worked. In the last desperate attempt, someone dressed as an angel had gone to him at night to make him eat again. Although the man was unaware of the deception, he continued to refuse any kind of food. The ingenuity of the caretakers was of no avail in this case, Isaak died a short time later.
Another important task of the madhouse was to observe the inhabitants. This control was to ensure that the insane were not left to their own devices or imprisoned unnecessarily. They were also alert to stimuli that caused or exacerbated undesirable behaviour. According to the French military physician Daignan, there was humane treatment in the Amsterdam Dolhuis. In 1777 he wrote:"The type of institution of this kind, it might serve as a model for those who are interested in this kind of institution. I don't believe it is possible to see a cleaner or better maintained house. (…) The unfortunate are kept in cells no longer than until they are at peace. (…) They are well looked after, even the worst of them.”
Have you always wanted to see the inside of a madhouse? Then you can. Since 2005, the former madhouse of Haarlem has been a museum. From the late Middle Ages, lepers, plague sufferers and the insane were taken care of here. The cells for the 'dollen' dating from the 16th century are still completely intact. The Haarlem madhouse is a national museum of psychiatry. There is much to see about how insanity has been dealt with through the ages. In addition, there are many changing exhibitions. Museum Het Dolhuys, Schotersingel 2.
The stay
How long people stayed in the Dolhuis differed per case. The recording data shows a clear difference between the 17th and 18th centuries. In the 18th century, for example, the number of short recordings (one to three months) increased considerably. A quarter of the people left the house after this period. The admission data also shows that there was a decline in long admissions (longer than ten years). In the 17th century a third of the people stayed in the Dolhuis for a long period, in the 18th century this was only a tenth. There are two reasons for these changes. It is possible that the Dolhuis was increasingly used as a place where someone could relax. The therapeutic use of the asylum as a place to recover from the worries and tensions of everyday life is a development in psychiatric care that is attributed to changes in mentality in the 19th century.
From the data about the Amsterdam Dolhuis, we can cautiously state that this may have already happened here. In addition, we see an increase in the role of family members. These made nine times as many requests for the release of a relative in the 18th century than in the previous century. From this it can be concluded that in the 18th century the family members were probably more and more actively involved in the dismissal of residents. For example, there are several cases in which requests were made to be released so that people could try again at home. This is a form of probationary leave. This is remarkable because it is known as a modern phenomenon. The involvement of the family and the way in which they deal with their relatives in the Dolhuis seems to show that the negative image of the Dolhuis as a storage place for unwanted relatives needs to be revised.
The involvement of the family can also be seen in the way they cared for the admitted family member during the admission. Board money had to be paid for a family member in the Dolhuis. This was not always a sum of money; family and/or friends did the laundry for more than half of the residents. The Dolhuis was obliged to provide people with clean clothes if the family was unable to do so. This meant more costs for the house. The insane was then given a one-piece garment, called the 'duffel house hansop'. It could be that the shame for wearing this item of clothing was high, causing family and friends to try their best to avoid losing face. It is also possible that the Dolhuis strictly supervised the payment of board money and obliged people with the lowest incomes to contribute by taking care of the laundry. Anyway, this family contribution kept contact with and involvement with the family member who stayed in the Dolhuis.
Glorified death house?
The death rate in the Dolhuis was considerable. In the 17th century, more than half of the people in the institution died, in the 18th century more than 40%. It could give the impression that the Dolhuis was a glorified place of death. However, research shows that at the beginning of the 20th century the death rate in asylums was at a comparable level. It is difficult to say how many people were actually cured in the Dolhuis. Documentation with any final diagnosis is missing. Yet half of the people left the Amsterdam Dolhuis again. The situation had probably improved to such an extent upon discharge that the person in question no longer posed a direct danger to himself and those around him and could therefore go home. This shakes the image of lifelong imprisonment in the Dolhuis with death as the end point. Were residents alone and disowned in the Dolhuis? In some cases, yes. But there was also a great deal of good concern from family, friends and the staff of the Dolhuis itself.